- This topic has 16 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Not this year, but lets say in 2012,
Mr. X runs for President on the Republican ticket. He chooses as his VP Mr. A.
Mr. Y runs for President on the Democratic ticket He chooses as his VP Mr. B.
Mr. Z runs for President on the Conservative ticket He chooses as his VP Mr. A (note: Mr. A is on the Republican and Conservative ticket).
Mr. X and Mr. A won 35% of the votes.
Mr. Y and Mr. B won 45% of the votes.
Mr. Z and Mr. A won 20% of the votes.
Mr. Y won the Presidency.
But who becomes his VP? Mr. A really got 55% of the votes compared to Mr. B who only got 45%.
(I know Mr. Y can throw A out and choose someone else, but who really won?)
{A!}
Is this a trick question?
it depends for whom the electors (members of the Electoral College) vote for for vice-president. Electors may vote for anyone eligible to run for vice-president. Some are bound or pledged to vote for the candidate who won the majority of votes in the electors state, others are not.
Presuming that the results you give above are the electoral vote and not the popular vote, Mr. A would be the vice-president elect. Or, given the trend in tonight’s voting, it could be Ms. A.
Our dear friend d a,
You’ve never voted for President in your life. You’ve only voted for people to be on the electoral college. THEY vote for President and VP. Not you.
Each elector can cast one vote for President and one vote for Vice President.
Additionally, most states (unlike New York) do not allow a candidate to run on more than one party line. So your scenario is unrealistic.
Ben Torah
Which basically means voting is a sham becomes the electors can vote for whom they want anyways despite who got the popular vote no?
WIY: Yes. Constitutionally an elector can vote for anyone. (A small number of states have a law that requires them to vote for whom they are pledged to; but even in those states if they differentiate from whom they are pledged, their vote will count for whomever they voted for.)
Look at your presidential ballot closely. You are not voting for President.
Which basically means voting is a sham becomes the electors can vote for whom they want anyways despite who got the popular vote no?
It’s even worse than that. Technically, any state legislature can appoint whichever electors it wants. There is no requirement that the people vote for Presidential electors at all. They could, in theory say (provided there wasn’t something in the state constitution to countermand it) “OK, no presidential election this year. We’re going to decide which electors we will appoint.”
The Wolf
They could also appoint themselves, and the Governor, to lifetime positions as legislators and abolish elections for state office. Whilst that is true, state constitution permitting, it isn’t practical and hasn’t happened in hundreds of years.
They could also appoint themselves, and the Governor, to lifetime positions as legislators and abolish elections for state office.
I’m not so certain about that. The US Constitution says that each state must have a Republican form of government. I don’t think the state legislators appointing themselves to lifetime terms would pass muster on those grounds.
On the other hand, the Florida legislature was considering appointing their own set of electors in the 2000 election if the courts did not rule in time.
The Wolf
Abolishing elections would violate the Republican Form of Government Clause in the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court, if a state tried that, Congress would have the right to override them.
Abolishing elections would violate the Republican Form of Government Clause in the Constitution.
Just to clarify, that only applies to elections for state offices. It does not apply to abolishing presidential elections within the state — that IS within the power of the state legislatures (notwithstanding anything in the state constitution to the contrary).
The Wolf
The US Constitution says that each state must have a Republican form of government.
Now that’s a provision I like! 🙂
Now that’s a provision I like! 🙂
Of course, you’re aware that it does NOT mean the Republican party. 🙂
The Wolf
I always felt the truly Democratic thing to do would be to let two people rung for president. The winner would be pres, and the runner up would be vice pres. The people would select these two to run (and anyone else who wanted to, as well) by a popular primary.
Why only two people running for president? If you’re having a direct election, why not just open up the field?
“OK, no presidential election this year. We’re going to decide which electors we will appoint.”
No state has done this since the 1860 election.
“They could also appoint themselves, and the Governor, to lifetime positions as legislators and abolish elections for state office.”
The US Constitution prohibits this as was mentioned above.
“The winner would be pres, and the runner up would be vice pres.”
That actually was the system in the first four Presidential elections. Read about the election of 1800 and you will see why it was changed.
oomis: It was originally done just about like you suggest, but it didn’t quite work out too well in the 1796 and 1800 elections. So the Twelfth Amendment was adapted in 1804 ushering in the current system.
It depends if this happens at the state level or the federal level. In the state elections you don’t vote or individual candidates, you vote for the ticket so Y and B win the state vote. If this happen at the federal level it gets complicated. Since non of the candidates for president got a majority a second round of voting takes place in the House of Representitives and A becomes the Vice President
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.